‭SECOND DIVISION‬

‭[ G.R. No. 255864. July 06, 2022 ]‬

‭UNIVERSAL ROBINA CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. ROBERTO‬

‭DE GUZMAN MAGLALANG, RESPONDENT.‬

‭D E C I S I O N‬

‭LOPEZ, M., J.:‬

‭This‬‭Court‬‭resolves‬‭Universal‬‭Robina‬‭Corporation's‬‭(URC)‬‭Petition‬‭for‬‭Review‬‭on‬‭Certiorari‬‭[1]‬ ‭assailing‬
‭the‬ ‭Court‬ ‭of‬ ‭Appeals'‬ ‭(CA)‬ ‭September‬ ‭15,‬ ‭2020‬ ‭Decision‬‭[2]‬ ‭and‬ ‭February‬ ‭8,‬ ‭2021‬ ‭Resolution‬‭[3]‬ ‭in‬
‭CA-G.R.‬‭SP‬‭No.‬‭155421,‬‭which‬‭reversed‬‭the‬‭National‬‭Labor‬‭Relations‬‭Commission's‬‭(NLRC)‬‭December‬
‭29,‬ ‭2017‬ ‭Decision‬‭[4]‬ ‭and‬ ‭January‬ ‭31,‬ ‭2018‬ ‭Resolution‬‭[5]‬ ‭in‬‭NLRC‬‭LAC‬‭No.‬‭12-003716-17/NLCR‬‭NCR‬
‭Case No. 05-07755-17, finding respondent Roberto De Guzman Maglalang's (Roberto) dismissal valid.‬
‭Facts of the Case‬
‭In‬ ‭his‬ ‭complaint,‬ ‭Roberto‬ ‭alleged‬ ‭that‬‭he‬‭started‬‭working‬‭as‬‭URC's‬‭machine‬‭operator‬‭on‬‭November‬‭17,‬
‭1997.‬ ‭On‬ ‭March‬ ‭26,‬ ‭2015,‬ ‭he‬ ‭went‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭parking‬ ‭lot‬ ‭to‬ ‭clean‬ ‭his‬ ‭motorcycle‬ ‭seat‬ ‭using‬ ‭the‬ ‭alcohol‬
‭provided‬‭by‬‭the‬‭company‬‭for‬‭the‬‭employees'‬‭use‬‭within‬‭the‬‭company‬‭premises.‬‭Afterward,‬‭he‬‭submitted‬‭a‬
‭bag‬ ‭for‬ ‭inspection‬ ‭before‬ ‭going‬ ‭home.‬ ‭The‬ ‭security‬ ‭guard‬ ‭noticed‬ ‭a‬ ‭bottle.‬ ‭Roberto‬ ‭realized‬ ‭that‬ ‭the‬
‭alcohol‬‭was‬‭still‬‭in‬‭his‬‭bag.‬‭Roberto‬‭panicked‬‭and‬‭threw‬‭the‬‭bottle‬‭away‬‭before‬‭the‬‭security‬‭guard‬‭could‬
‭retrieve‬ ‭it.‬ ‭When‬ ‭the‬ ‭security‬ ‭guard‬ ‭recovered‬ ‭the‬ ‭bottle,‬ ‭he‬ ‭discovered‬ ‭that‬ ‭it‬ ‭contained‬ ‭ethyl‬ ‭alcohol‬
‭belonging‬‭to‬‭the‬‭company.‬‭Roberto‬‭was‬‭brought‬‭to‬‭the‬‭police‬‭station‬‭for‬‭investigation.‬‭The‬‭following‬‭day,‬
‭he‬‭was‬‭criminally‬‭charged‬‭with‬‭qualified‬‭theft.‬‭He‬‭was‬‭detained‬‭at‬‭the‬‭police‬‭station‬‭for‬‭five‬‭days‬‭and‬‭was‬
‭placed under preventive suspension for 30 days, which was extended for another 30 days.‬‭[6]‬
‭On‬‭March‬‭27,‬‭2015,‬‭URC‬‭issued‬‭a‬‭Notice‬‭to‬‭Explain,‬‭informing‬‭Roberto‬‭of‬‭the‬‭charges‬‭[7]‬ ‭against‬‭him‬‭and‬
‭giving‬ ‭him‬ ‭five‬ ‭days‬ ‭to‬ ‭submit‬ ‭a‬ ‭written‬ ‭explanation.‬ ‭Roberto‬ ‭submitted‬ ‭a‬ ‭written‬ ‭explanation‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬
‭union, but URC refused to accept it. He also asked for the union's help to be reinstated, but to no avail.‬‭[8]‬
‭For‬ ‭its‬ ‭part,‬ ‭URC‬ ‭alleged‬ ‭that‬ ‭Roberto‬‭failed‬‭to‬‭submit‬‭a‬‭written‬‭explanation,‬‭so‬‭they‬‭gave‬‭him‬‭another‬
‭opportunity‬ ‭to‬ ‭present‬ ‭his‬‭side.‬‭[9]‬ ‭In‬‭an‬‭administrative‬‭hearing‬‭held‬‭on‬‭April‬‭27,‬‭2015,‬‭Roberto‬‭admitted‬
‭that‬ ‭he‬ ‭took‬ ‭the‬ ‭bottle‬ ‭but‬ ‭denied‬ ‭stealing‬ ‭it.‬ ‭URC‬ ‭was‬ ‭not‬ ‭convinced.‬ ‭Thus,‬ ‭on‬ ‭May‬ ‭14,‬ ‭2015,‬ ‭URC‬
‭issued a Notice of Termination.‬‭[10]‬
‭URC‬‭added‬‭that‬‭during‬‭the‬‭pendency‬‭of‬‭the‬‭criminal‬‭case,‬‭they‬‭received‬‭various‬‭apology‬‭letters‬‭with‬‭pleas‬
‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭withdrawal‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭criminal‬ ‭case‬ ‭and‬ ‭reinstatement‬ ‭from‬ ‭Roberto.‬ ‭On‬ ‭July‬ ‭15,‬ ‭2016,‬‭the‬‭parties‬
‭entered‬‭into‬‭a‬‭compromise‬‭agreement‬‭wherein‬‭they‬‭agreed‬‭to‬‭waive‬‭any‬‭and‬‭all‬‭claims‬‭or‬‭cause‬‭of‬‭actions‬
‭that‬ ‭they‬ ‭may‬ ‭have‬ ‭against‬ ‭one‬ ‭another,‬ ‭given‬ ‭URC's‬ ‭withdrawal‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭criminal‬ ‭case.‬ ‭However,‬‭URC‬
‭denied‬ ‭Roberto's‬ ‭request‬ ‭for‬ ‭reinstatement‬ ‭and‬ ‭payment‬ ‭of‬ ‭money‬ ‭claims.‬ ‭On‬ ‭August‬ ‭23,‬ ‭2016,‬ ‭the‬
‭criminal‬ ‭case‬ ‭against‬ ‭Roberto‬ ‭was‬ ‭dismissed.‬ ‭But‬ ‭then,‬ ‭Roberto‬ ‭filed‬ ‭an‬ ‭illegal‬ ‭dismissal‬ ‭case‬ ‭against‬
‭URC.‬‭[11]‬
‭On‬ ‭September‬ ‭29,‬ ‭2017,‬ ‭the‬ ‭Labor‬ ‭Arbiter‬ ‭(LA)‬ ‭dismissed‬ ‭the‬ ‭case‬ ‭for‬ ‭lack‬ ‭of‬ ‭merit.‬ ‭The‬ ‭LA‬ ‭found‬
‭Roberto‬‭guilty‬‭of‬‭serious‬‭misconduct‬‭for‬‭theft‬‭of‬‭company‬‭property.‬‭The‬‭LA‬‭ordered‬‭URC‬‭to‬‭pay‬‭Roberto‬
‭P12,939.81, representing the balance of his money claims,‬‭[12]‬ ‭thus:‬
‭WHEREFORE, premises considered, the complaint for illegal dismissal is DISMISSED for lack of merit.‬
‭However,‬ ‭respondent‬ ‭[URC]‬‭is‬‭ordered‬‭to‬‭pay‬‭complainant‬‭[P]12,939.81‬‭representing‬‭the‬‭balance‬‭of‬‭his‬
‭money‬ ‭claims,‬ ‭after‬ ‭deducting‬ ‭government‬ ‭loans‬ ‭in‬ ‭the‬ ‭amount‬‭of‬‭[P]13,843.50‬‭and‬‭[P]15,249.66‬‭from‬
‭Pag-ibig and SSS, respectively.‬
‭SO ORDERED.‬‭[13]‬
‭In‬‭a‬‭Decision‬‭[14]‬ ‭dated‬‭December‬‭29,‬‭2017,‬‭the‬‭NLRC‬‭upheld‬‭the‬‭LA's‬‭findings‬‭that‬‭Roberto‬‭was‬‭validly‬
‭dismissed for committing serious misconduct.‬
‭Unable‬ ‭to‬ ‭secure‬ ‭a‬ ‭reconsideration,‬‭[15]‬ ‭Roberto‬ ‭filed‬ ‭a‬ ‭petition‬ ‭for‬‭certiorari‬‭with‬‭the‬‭CA.‬‭[16]‬ ‭He‬‭argued‬
‭that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed his complaint for illegal dismissal.‬
‭On‬ ‭September‬ ‭15,‬ ‭2020,‬ ‭the‬ ‭CA‬ ‭issued‬ ‭a‬ ‭Decision‬‭[17]‬ ‭finding‬‭that‬‭Roberto‬‭was‬‭illegally‬‭dismissed.‬‭The‬
‭CA‬ ‭ruled‬ ‭that‬ ‭Roberto‬ ‭was‬ ‭only‬ ‭guilty‬ ‭of‬ ‭simple‬ ‭misconduct‬ ‭because‬ ‭URC‬ ‭recovered‬ ‭the‬ ‭bottle‬ ‭of‬
‭alcohol,‬‭and‬‭its‬‭value‬‭was‬‭only‬‭P60.00.‬‭Roberto‬‭was‬‭also‬‭not‬‭guilty‬‭of‬‭willful‬‭breach‬‭of‬‭trust‬‭because‬‭he‬
‭was‬ ‭not‬ ‭occupying‬ ‭a‬ ‭position‬ ‭of‬ ‭trust‬ ‭and‬ ‭confidence.‬ ‭With‬ ‭this,‬ ‭the‬ ‭penalty‬ ‭of‬ ‭dismissal‬ ‭was‬ ‭not‬
‭commensurate‬ ‭with‬ ‭the‬ ‭misconduct.‬ ‭However,‬ ‭since‬ ‭reinstatement‬ ‭was‬ ‭no‬ ‭longer‬ ‭possible‬ ‭because‬ ‭of‬
‭strained‬ ‭relations‬ ‭between‬ ‭the‬ ‭parties,‬ ‭the‬ ‭CA‬ ‭granted‬ ‭Roberto‬ ‭separation‬ ‭pay‬ ‭in‬ ‭lieu‬ ‭of‬‭reinstatement,‬
‭with backwages.‬‭[18]‬ ‭The dispositive part of the CA's‬‭Decision reads:‬
‭WHEREFORE‬‭,‬‭premises‬‭considered,‬‭the‬‭Petition‬‭is‬‭GRANTED‬‭.‬‭The‬‭Decision‬‭and‬‭Resolution‬‭dated‬‭29‬
‭December‬ ‭2017‬ ‭and‬ ‭19‬ ‭February‬ ‭2018,‬‭respectively,‬‭of‬‭the‬‭[NLRC],‬‭Sixth‬‭Division‬‭in‬‭NLRC‬‭LAC‬‭No.‬
‭12-003716-17‬ ‭/‬ ‭RAB‬ ‭Case‬ ‭No.‬ ‭05-07755-17‬ ‭are‬ ‭REVERSED‬ ‭and‬ ‭SET‬ ‭ASIDE‬‭.‬ ‭A‬ ‭new‬ ‭judgment‬ ‭is‬
‭ENTERED‬ ‭finding‬ ‭[Roberto]‬ ‭as‬ ‭illegally‬ ‭dismissed‬ ‭from‬ ‭his‬ ‭employment‬‭by‬‭[URC].‬‭Furthermore,‬‭the‬
‭[LA] of origin is‬‭DIRECTED‬‭to compute the following‬‭with dispatch:‬
‭1.‬ ‭[Roberto's]‬‭backwages‬‭from‬‭the‬‭time‬‭his‬‭salary‬‭was‬‭withheld‬‭on‬‭26‬‭March‬‭2015‬‭up‬‭to‬‭the‬‭date‬‭of‬
‭finality of this Decision;‬

‭2.‬ ‭[Roberto's]‬‭separation‬‭pay‬‭from‬‭the‬‭date‬‭he‬‭was‬‭employed‬‭on‬‭17‬‭November‬‭1997‬‭up‬‭to‬‭the‬‭date‬‭of‬
‭finality of this Decision.‬
‭[URC]‬ ‭is‬ ‭also‬ ‭ordered‬ ‭to‬ ‭pay‬ ‭[Roberto]‬ ‭attorney's‬ ‭fees‬ ‭equivalent‬ ‭to‬ ‭10%‬ ‭of‬‭the‬‭total‬‭monetary‬‭award.‬
‭Furthermore,‬ ‭the‬ ‭total‬ ‭monetary‬ ‭award‬ ‭shall‬ ‭earn‬ ‭legal‬ ‭interest‬ ‭at‬ ‭the‬ ‭rate‬ ‭of‬ ‭6%‬ ‭from‬ ‭the‬ ‭date‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬
‭finality of this Decision until fully paid.‬
‭SO ORDERED‬‭.‬‭[19]‬
‭URC moved for reconsideration, but the CA denied it in a February 8, 2021 Resolution.‬‭[20]‬
‭Hence, this petition.‬
‭Parties' Arguments‬
‭URC‬‭insists‬‭that‬‭Roberto‬‭was‬‭validly‬‭dismissed‬‭because‬‭theft‬‭of‬‭company‬‭property‬‭is‬‭serious‬‭misconduct.‬
‭Roberto's‬ ‭length‬ ‭of‬ ‭service,‬ ‭the‬ ‭value‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭item,‬ ‭and‬ ‭its‬‭recovery‬‭does‬‭not‬‭decrease‬‭the‬‭gravity‬‭of‬‭the‬
‭offense.‬ ‭His‬ ‭actions‬ ‭manifest‬ ‭his‬ ‭inexcusable‬ ‭irresponsibility‬ ‭and‬ ‭expose‬ ‭his‬ ‭depravity‬ ‭and‬ ‭scorn‬ ‭for‬
‭disciplinary‬ ‭rules.‬ ‭These‬ ‭caused‬ ‭damage‬ ‭to‬ ‭URC's‬ ‭interest‬ ‭and‬ ‭constituted‬ ‭a‬ ‭willful‬ ‭breach‬ ‭of‬ ‭trust.‬
‭Besides,‬ ‭the‬ ‭compromise‬ ‭agreement‬ ‭bars‬ ‭Roberto‬ ‭from‬ ‭filing‬ ‭any‬ ‭claim‬ ‭arising‬ ‭from‬ ‭his‬ ‭act‬ ‭of‬ ‭theft.‬
‭Hence, he is not entitled to separation pay, backwages, and attorney's fees.‬‭[21]‬
‭As‬ ‭a‬ ‭defense,‬ ‭Roberto‬ ‭avers‬ ‭that‬ ‭his‬ ‭misconduct‬‭is‬‭not‬‭serious‬‭because‬‭the‬‭item‬‭only‬‭costs‬‭P60.00,‬‭and‬
‭URC‬ ‭was‬ ‭able‬ ‭to‬ ‭recover‬ ‭it‬ ‭from‬ ‭him.‬ ‭He‬ ‭maintains‬ ‭that‬ ‭he‬ ‭does‬ ‭not‬ ‭occupy‬ ‭a‬ ‭position‬ ‭of‬ ‭trust‬ ‭and‬
‭confidence.‬‭Roberto‬‭also‬‭argues‬‭that‬‭the‬‭compromise‬‭agreement‬‭does‬‭not‬‭preclude‬‭him‬‭from‬‭filing‬‭a‬‭labor‬
‭case‬ ‭against‬ ‭URC‬ ‭because‬ ‭it‬ ‭only‬ ‭pertains‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭crime‬ ‭of‬ ‭theft‬ ‭and‬ ‭has‬ ‭nothing‬ ‭to‬ ‭do‬ ‭with‬ ‭his‬
‭employment. For these reasons, he was illegally dismissed. Thus, he is entitled to his money claims.‬‭[22]‬
‭Court's Ruling‬
‭The petition is partly meritorious.‬
‭The‬ ‭Rules‬ ‭of‬ ‭Court‬ ‭provides‬ ‭that‬ ‭a‬ ‭review‬ ‭under‬ ‭Rule‬ ‭45‬ ‭is‬ ‭a‬ ‭matter‬ ‭of‬‭judicial‬‭discretion‬‭and‬‭will‬‭be‬
‭granted‬ ‭only‬ ‭when‬ ‭there‬ ‭are‬ ‭special‬ ‭and‬ ‭important‬ ‭reasons.‬ ‭In‬ ‭Miro‬ ‭v.‬ ‭Vda.‬ ‭de‬ ‭Erederos‬‭,‬‭[23]‬ ‭the‬ ‭Court‬
‭identified‬‭the‬‭parameters‬‭of‬‭a‬‭judicial‬‭review‬‭under‬‭Rule‬‭45,‬‭i.e‬‭.,‬‭limitations‬‭on‬‭questions‬‭of‬‭law‬‭and‬‭errors‬
‭of‬‭the‬‭appellate‬‭court.‬‭[24]‬ ‭A‬‭case‬‭presents‬‭a‬‭question‬‭of‬‭law‬‭when‬‭there‬‭is‬‭doubt‬‭as‬‭to‬‭what‬‭the‬‭law‬‭is‬‭on‬‭a‬
‭certain‬ ‭state‬ ‭of‬ ‭facts.‬ ‭In‬ ‭other‬ ‭words,‬ ‭"[t]he‬ ‭resolution‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭issue‬ ‭must‬ ‭rest‬ ‭solely‬ ‭on‬ ‭what‬ ‭the‬ ‭law‬
‭provides‬‭on‬‭the‬‭given‬‭set‬‭of‬‭circumstances."‬‭[25]‬ ‭Here,‬‭the‬‭facts‬‭are‬‭not‬‭disputed.‬‭As‬‭such,‬‭the‬‭Court‬‭is‬‭only‬
‭confronted‬‭with‬‭the‬‭issue‬‭of‬‭whether‬‭the‬‭value‬‭of‬‭the‬‭company‬‭property‬‭stolen,‬‭damage‬‭to‬‭the‬‭company,‬
‭and‬ ‭employee's‬ ‭length‬ ‭of‬ ‭service‬ ‭may‬ ‭be‬ ‭considered‬ ‭in‬ ‭determining‬ ‭the‬ ‭gravity‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭misconduct‬
‭committed.‬
‭Unquestionably, employers have the right to discipline and terminate their employees.‬‭[26]‬
‭Article 297 [282] of the Labor Code provides the just causes for dismissal of employees, thus:‬
‭ART.‬‭297.‬‭[282]‬‭Termination‬‭by‬‭Employer‬‭.‬‭—‬‭An‬‭employer‬‭may‬‭terminate‬‭an‬‭employment‬‭for‬‭any‬‭of‬‭the‬
‭following causes:‬
‭(a)‬‭Serious‬‭misconduct‬‭or‬‭willful‬‭disobedience‬‭by‬‭the‬‭employee‬‭of‬‭the‬‭lawful‬‭orders‬‭of‬‭his‬‭employer‬
‭or representative in connection with his work;‬
‭(b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;‬
‭(c)‬ ‭Fraud‬ ‭or‬ ‭willful‬ ‭breach‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭employee‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭trust‬ ‭reposed‬ ‭in‬ ‭him‬‭by‬‭his‬‭employer‬‭or‬‭duly‬
‭authorized representative;‬
‭(d)‬ ‭Commission‬ ‭of‬ ‭a‬ ‭crime‬ ‭or‬ ‭offense‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭employee‬ ‭against‬ ‭the‬ ‭person‬ ‭of‬ ‭his‬ ‭employer‬ ‭or‬ ‭any‬
‭immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representatives; and‬
‭(e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing. (Emphasis supplied)‬
‭Fraud‬ ‭or‬ ‭willful‬ ‭breach‬‭by‬‭the‬‭employee‬‭of‬‭the‬‭trust‬‭reposed‬‭in‬‭him‬‭by‬‭his‬‭employer‬‭or‬‭duly‬‭authorized‬
‭representative.‬
‭"Misconduct‬‭is‬‭x‬‭x‬‭x‬‭improper‬‭or‬‭wrong‬‭conduct.‬‭It‬‭is‬‭the‬‭transgression‬‭of‬‭some‬‭established‬‭and‬‭definite‬
‭rule‬‭of‬‭action,‬‭a‬‭forbidden‬‭act,‬‭[or‬‭a‬‭willful]‬‭dereliction‬‭of‬‭duty,‬‭x‬‭x‬‭x‬‭and‬‭implies‬‭a‬‭wrongful‬‭intent‬‭[.]"‬‭[27]‬
‭To‬‭be‬‭a‬‭just‬‭cause‬‭for‬‭dismissal,‬‭"(a)‬‭the‬‭misconduct‬‭must‬‭be‬‭serious;‬‭(b)‬‭it‬‭must‬‭relate‬‭to‬‭the‬‭performance‬
‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭employee's‬ ‭duties‬ ‭showing‬ ‭that‬ ‭the‬ ‭employee‬ ‭has‬ ‭become‬ ‭unfit‬ ‭to‬ ‭continue‬ ‭working‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬
‭employer;‬‭and‬‭(c)‬‭it‬‭must‬‭have‬‭been‬‭performed‬‭with‬‭wrongful‬‭intent."‬‭[28]‬ ‭On‬‭the‬‭other‬‭hand,‬‭loss‬‭of‬‭trust‬
‭and confidence can be a ground for dismissal when:‬
‭(1)‬ ‭the employee concerned must be holding a position of trust and confidence; and‬

‭(2)‬ ‭there‬ ‭must‬‭be‬‭an‬‭act‬‭that‬‭would‬‭justify‬‭the‬‭loss‬‭of‬‭trust‬‭and‬‭confidence.‬‭And‬‭in‬‭order‬‭to‬‭constitute‬‭a‬

‭just‬ ‭cause‬ ‭for‬ ‭dismissal,‬ ‭the‬ ‭act‬ ‭complained‬ ‭of‬ ‭must‬ ‭be‬ ‭work-related‬ ‭such‬ ‭as‬ ‭would‬ ‭show‬ ‭the‬
‭employee concerned to be unfit to continue working for the employer.‬‭[29]‬ ‭(Citation omitted)‬
‭The‬‭employers'‬‭"right‬‭is,‬‭however,‬‭subject‬‭to‬‭[the‬‭State's]‬‭reasonable‬‭regulation‬‭x‬‭x‬‭x‬‭in‬‭the‬‭exercise‬‭of‬‭its‬
‭police‬‭power.‬‭Accordingly,‬‭the‬‭finding‬‭that‬‭an‬‭employee‬‭violated‬‭company‬‭rules‬‭and‬‭regulations‬‭is‬‭subject‬
‭to‬‭scrutiny‬‭by‬‭the‬‭Court‬‭to‬‭determine‬‭if‬‭the‬‭dismissal‬‭is‬‭justified‬‭and,‬‭if‬‭so,‬‭whether‬‭the‬‭penalty‬‭imposed‬‭is‬
‭commensurate to the gravity of his offense."‬‭[30]‬
‭In‬ ‭PAL‬ ‭Inc.‬ ‭v.‬ ‭PALEA‬‭(‬‭PAL‬‭),‬‭[31]‬ ‭the‬‭Court‬‭found‬‭that‬‭outright‬‭termination‬‭of‬‭an‬‭employee‬‭caught‬‭with‬‭a‬
‭piece‬ ‭of‬ ‭lead‬ ‭is‬ ‭unjustified.‬‭Retaining‬‭the‬‭erring‬‭employee‬‭would‬‭not‬‭necessarily‬‭result‬‭in‬‭oppression‬‭or‬
‭self-destruction‬ ‭on‬ ‭the‬ ‭employer's‬ ‭part.‬‭[32]‬ ‭Later,‬ ‭in‬ ‭Firestone‬ ‭Tire‬ ‭and‬ ‭Rubber‬ ‭Co.‬‭of‬‭the‬‭Philippines‬‭v.‬
‭Lariosa‬ ‭(‬‭Firestone‬‭),‬‭[33]‬ ‭the‬ ‭Court‬ ‭upheld‬ ‭the‬ ‭employer's‬ ‭right‬ ‭to‬ ‭self-preservation‬ ‭when‬ ‭it‬ ‭sustained‬‭the‬
‭validity‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭dismissal‬ ‭of‬ ‭an‬ ‭employee‬ ‭because‬ ‭retaining‬ ‭him‬ ‭could,‬ ‭in‬ ‭the‬ ‭long‬ ‭run,‬ ‭endanger‬ ‭the‬
‭viability‬‭of‬‭the‬‭company.‬‭The‬‭employee‬‭was‬‭entrusted‬‭with‬‭twenty‬‭wool‬‭flannel‬‭swabs‬‭for‬‭cleaning‬‭disks,‬
‭but‬‭he‬‭only‬‭used‬‭four‬‭and‬‭kept‬‭the‬‭rest‬‭in‬‭his‬‭bag.‬‭The‬‭employee's‬‭act‬‭of‬‭dishonesty‬‭in‬‭handling‬‭company‬
‭property‬‭and‬‭breach‬‭of‬‭trust‬‭are‬‭valid‬‭grounds‬‭for‬‭dismissal.‬‭[34]‬ ‭However,‬‭the‬‭Court‬‭explained‬‭in‬‭Gelmart‬
‭Industries‬‭Phils.,‬‭Inc.‬‭v.‬‭NLRC‬‭(‬‭Gelmart‬‭)‬‭[35]‬ ‭that‬‭its‬‭ruling‬‭in‬‭Firestone‬‭is‬‭not‬‭"a‬‭limitation‬‭on‬‭the‬‭[State's‬
‭right]‬ ‭to‬ ‭regulate‬ ‭or‬ ‭temper‬ ‭the‬ ‭[management's‬ ‭prerogative]‬‭to‬‭dismiss‬‭an‬‭erring‬‭employee.‬‭[Even‬‭if‬‭the‬
‭employee‬ ‭and‬‭employer‬‭agreed‬‭upon‬‭some‬‭rules‬‭on‬‭dismissal,‬‭the‬‭State‬‭can‬‭still‬‭inquire]‬‭whether‬‭or‬‭not‬
‭its‬ ‭rigid‬ ‭application‬ ‭would‬ ‭work‬ ‭too‬ ‭harshly‬ ‭on‬ ‭the‬ ‭employee."‬‭[36]‬ ‭The‬ ‭Court‬ ‭reiterated‬ ‭its‬ ‭ruling‬ ‭in‬
‭Gelmart‬‭[37]‬ ‭and‬ ‭found‬ ‭that‬ ‭dismissing‬ ‭an‬‭employee‬‭caught‬‭with‬‭a‬‭container‬‭filled‬‭with‬‭used‬‭motor‬‭oil‬‭is‬
‭improper.‬‭The‬‭Court‬‭considered‬‭the‬‭employee's‬‭clean‬‭record‬‭in‬‭15‬‭years‬‭of‬‭service,‬‭the‬‭minimal‬‭value‬‭of‬
‭the‬‭used‬‭oil,‬‭and‬‭the‬‭employer's‬‭failure‬‭to‬‭reasonably‬‭establish‬‭that‬‭non-dismissal‬‭of‬‭the‬‭employee‬‭would‬
‭work undue prejudice to the viability of their operation, or is patently inimical to the company's interest.‬
‬ altex‬‭),‬‭[38]‬ ‭the‬ ‭Court‬ ‭considered‬ ‭the‬
‭Similarly,‬ ‭in‬ ‭Caltex‬ ‭Refinery‬ ‭Employees‬ ‭Association‬ ‭vs.‬ ‭NLRC‬ ‭(‭C
‭employee's‬ ‭clean‬ ‭record‬ ‭in‬ ‭his‬ ‭8‬ ‭years‬ ‭of‬ ‭service,‬ ‭the‬ ‭minimal‬ ‭value‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭property‬ ‭and‬ ‭its‬ ‭timely‬
‭retrieval,‬‭and‬‭the‬‭employer's‬‭failure‬‭to‬‭show‬‭that‬‭"retention‬‭[of‬‭the‬‭employee]‬‭in‬‭the‬‭service‬‭would‬‭work‬
‭undue‬‭prejudice‬‭to‬‭the‬‭viability‬‭of‬‭[its]‬‭operations‬‭or‬‭is‬‭patently‬‭inimical‬‭to‬‭its‬‭interest,‬‭[in‬‭finding‬‭that]‬‭the‬
‭penalty‬‭of‬‭dismissal‬‭x‬‭x‬‭x‬‭is‬‭[too]‬‭harsh‬‭and‬‭[unreasonable‬‭for‬‭an‬‭employee‬‭who‬‭was‬‭caught‬‭with‬‭a‬‭lighter‬
‭fluid‬‭during‬‭inspection]."‬‭The‬‭Court‬‭held‬‭"that‬‭the‬‭preventive‬‭suspension‬‭x‬‭x‬‭x‬‭is‬‭a‬‭sufficient‬‭penalty‬‭for‬
‭the‬‭misdemeanor."‬‭[39]‬ ‭But‬‭then,‬‭15‬‭years‬‭later,‬‭the‬‭Court‬‭held‬‭in‬‭Nagkakaisang‬‭Lakas‬‭ng‬‭Manggagawa‬‭sa‬
‬ eihin‬‭),‬‭[40]‬ ‭that‬ ‭the‬ ‭dismissal‬ ‭of‬ ‭an‬
‭Keihin‬ ‭(‬‭NLMK-OLALIA-KMU‬‭),‬ ‭et‬ ‭al.‬ ‭v.‬ ‭Keihin‬ ‭Philippines‬ ‭Corp‬‭.‬ ‭(‭K
‭employee‬‭who‬‭"attempted‬‭to‬‭bring‬‭home‬‭[a]‬‭packing‬‭tape"‬‭[41]‬ ‭for‬‭her‬‭personal‬‭use‬‭was‬‭proper.‬‭The‬‭Court‬
‭did‬‭not‬‭apply‬‭its‬‭ruling‬‭in‬‭Caltex‬‭because‬‭the‬‭employee‬‭was‬‭not‬‭even‬‭in‬‭her‬‭second‬‭year‬‭of‬‭service‬‭when‬
‭the‬‭incident‬‭occurred,‬‭and‬‭the‬‭company‬‭was‬‭already‬‭dealing‬‭with‬‭several‬‭cases‬‭of‬‭theft‬‭and‬‭vandalism‬‭of‬
‭company‬‭and‬‭employees'‬‭property‬‭when‬‭the‬‭incident‬‭happened.‬‭Moreover,‬‭the‬‭employee's‬‭intent‬‭to‬‭benefit‬
‭herself‬ ‭and‬ ‭defy‬ ‭the‬ ‭company's‬‭reminders‬‭against‬‭theft‬‭showed‬‭that‬‭it‬‭was‬‭not‬‭just‬‭an‬‭error‬‭of‬‭judgment‬
‭but‬ ‭a‬ ‭deliberate‬ ‭act‬ ‭of‬ ‭stealing‬ ‭company‬ ‭property.‬‭[42]‬ ‭Then,‬ ‭in‬ ‭Holcim‬‭,‭[‬43]‬ ‭the‬ ‭Court‬ ‭considered‬ ‭another‬
‭factor,‬ ‭i.e‬‭.,‬ ‭the‬ ‭employee's‬ ‭position,‬ ‭in‬ ‭determining‬ ‭whether‬ ‭theft‬ ‭of‬ ‭scrap‬ ‭electrical‬ ‭wires‬ ‭warrants‬
‭dismissal.‬ ‭The‬ ‭Court‬ ‭explained‬ ‭that‬ ‭dismissal‬ ‭is‬ ‭not‬ ‭commensurate‬ ‭with‬ ‭the‬ ‭employee's‬ ‭act,‬ ‭especially‬
‭since the employee, a packhouse operator, does not occupy a position of trust and confidence.‬‭[44]‬
‭Thus,‬‭the‬‭following‬‭factors‬‭should‬‭be‬‭considered‬‭in‬‭determining‬‭whether‬‭theft‬‭of‬‭company‬‭property‬‭by‬‭an‬
‭employee‬ ‭warrants‬ ‭the‬ ‭penalty‬ ‭of‬ ‭dismissal:‬ ‭(a)‬ ‭period‬ ‭of‬ ‭employment‬ ‭and‬ ‭existence‬ ‭of‬ ‭a‬ ‭derogatory‬
‭record;‬‭(b)‬‭value‬‭of‬‭the‬‭property‬‭involved;‬‭(c)‬‭cost‬‭of‬‭damage‬‭to‬‭the‬‭employer;‬‭(d)‬‭effect‬‭on‬‭the‬‭viability‬‭of‬
‭employer's operation or company's interest; and (e) employee's position.‬
‭Here,‬‭Roberto‬‭had‬‭been‬‭in‬‭URC's‬‭employ‬‭for‬‭18‬‭years,‬‭and‬‭this‬‭is‬‭the‬‭first‬‭time‬‭that‬‭he‬‭had‬‭been‬‭involved‬
‭in‬ ‭taking‬ ‭company‬ ‭property.‬‭The‬‭bottle‬‭of‬‭ethyl‬‭alcohol‬‭valued‬‭at‬‭P60.00‬‭is‬‭very‬‭minimal.‬‭URC‬‭did‬‭not‬
‭lose‬‭anything‬‭as‬‭the‬‭bottle‬‭was‬‭timely‬‭retrieved.‬‭Further,‬‭it‬‭was‬‭not‬‭shown‬‭that‬‭Roberto's‬‭retention‬‭would‬
‭work‬ ‭undue‬ ‭prejudice‬‭to‬‭the‬‭viability‬‭of‬‭URC's‬‭operations,‬‭or‬‭is‬‭patently‬‭inimical‬‭to‬‭its‬‭interest.‬‭Neither‬
‭does‬ ‭Roberto‬ ‭occupy‬ ‭a‬ ‭position‬ ‭of‬ ‭trust‬ ‭and‬ ‭confidence,‬ ‭the‬ ‭loss‬ ‭of‬ ‭which‬ ‭would‬ ‭justify‬‭his‬‭dismissal.‬
‭Hence,‬ ‭the‬ ‭Court‬ ‭finds‬ ‭that‬ ‭the‬ ‭penalty‬ ‭of‬ ‭dismissal‬‭is‬‭not‬‭proportional‬‭with‬‭Roberto's‬‭misconduct.‬‭His‬
‭preventive suspension was a sufficient penalty for the misdemeanor.‬‭[45]‬
‭The‬ ‭Court‬ ‭cannot‬ ‭apply‬ ‭its‬ ‭ruling‬ ‭in‬ ‭Reno‬ ‭Foods,‬ ‭Inc.‬ ‭and/or‬ ‭Khu‬ ‭v.‬ ‭Nagkakaisaing‬ ‭Lakas‬ ‭ng‬
‭Manggagawa‬ ‭(‬‭NLM‬‭)-‬‭Katipunan‬ ‭(‬‭Reno‬‭)‬‭[46]‬ ‭and‬ ‭Keihin‬‭,‬ ‭as‬ ‭URC‬ ‭proffers.‬ ‭In‬ ‭Holcim‬‭,‬ ‭the‬ ‭Court‬ ‭clarified‬
‭that‬ ‭Reno‬ ‭is‬ ‭not‬ ‭applicable‬ ‭in‬ ‭determining‬ ‭whether‬ ‭theft‬ ‭of‬ ‭company‬ ‭property‬ ‭is‬ ‭a‬ ‭serious‬ ‭misconduct‬
‭because‬ ‭the‬ ‭issue‬ ‭in‬ ‭Reno‬ ‭is‬ ‭the‬‭entitlement‬‭of‬‭the‬‭dismissed‬‭employee‬‭to‬‭separation‬‭pay—not‬‭whether‬
‭her‬‭dismissal‬‭for‬‭taking‬‭six‬‭cans‬‭of‬‭Reno‬‭is‬‭valid.‬‭[47]‬ ‭Meanwhile,‬‭Keihin‬‭is‬‭inapplicable‬‭here‬‭because‬‭the‬
‭dismissed‬‭employee,‬‭in‬‭that‬‭case,‬‭was‬‭not‬‭even‬‭in‬‭her‬‭second‬‭year‬‭of‬‭service‬‭when‬‭the‬‭incident‬‭occurred,‬
‭and‬ ‭the‬ ‭company‬ ‭was‬ ‭already‬ ‭dealing‬ ‭with‬ ‭several‬ ‭cases‬ ‭of‬ ‭theft‬ ‭and‬ ‭vandalism‬ ‭when‬ ‭the‬ ‭incident‬
‭happened.‬‭[48]‬ ‭Here,‬ ‭Roberto‬ ‭had‬ ‭a‬ ‭clean‬ ‭record‬ ‭for‬ ‭18‬ ‭years,‬ ‭and‬ ‭the‬ ‭circumstance‬ ‭that‬‭the‬‭company‬‭is‬
‭dealing‬‭with‬‭incidents‬‭of‬‭theft‬‭and‬‭vandalism‬‭of‬‭both‬‭company‬‭and‬‭employees'‬‭property‬‭is‬‭absent.‬‭Thus,‬
‭the Court's ruling in‬‭Caltex‬‭is more apt.‬
‭Likewise,‬ ‭URC's‬ ‭argument‬ ‭that‬‭the‬‭compromise‬‭agreement‬‭bars‬‭Roberto‬‭from‬‭filing‬‭an‬‭illegal‬‭dismissal‬
‭case is unconvincing. Paragraph 2 of the compromise agreement reads:‬
‭2.‬ ‭In‬ ‭view‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭foregoing,‬ ‭the‬ ‭FIRST‬ ‭PARTY‬ ‭(the‬ ‭Company)‬ ‭and‬ ‭the‬ ‭SECOND‬ ‭PARTY‬ ‭(the‬
‭petitioner)‬ ‭hereby‬ ‭release,‬ ‭waive‬ ‭and‬ ‭relinquish‬ ‭any‬ ‭and‬ ‭all‬ ‭other‬‭claim(s)‬‭or‬‭cause(s)‬‭of‬‭action‬‭that‬
‭they‬ ‭may‬ ‭have‬ ‭against‬ ‭one‬ ‭another‬‭that‬‭arose‬‭or‬‭may‬‭arise‬‭relative‬‭to‬‭the‬‭crime‬‭of‬‭theft‬‭which‬‭is‬‭the‬
‭subject of [this] criminal case.‬‭[49]‬ ‭(Underscoring‬‭supplied)‬
‭Clearly,‬‭the‬‭Waiver‬‭of‬‭Claims‬‭or‬‭other‬‭causes‬‭of‬‭action‬‭in‬‭the‬‭compromise‬‭agreement‬‭pertains‬‭to‬‭those‬‭that‬
‭may‬ ‭arise‬ ‭from‬ ‭the‬ ‭crime‬ ‭of‬ ‭theft.‬ ‭Whether‬ ‭Roberto's‬ ‭misconduct‬ ‭is‬ ‭serious‬ ‭to‬ ‭justify‬ ‭his‬ ‭termination‬
‭under the Labor Code is a different matter.‬
‭In‬‭fine,‬‭Roberto's‬‭misconduct‬‭is‬‭not‬‭serious‬‭to‬‭constitute‬‭a‬‭just‬‭cause‬‭for‬‭dismissal‬‭under‬‭Article‬‭297‬‭[282]‬
‭of‬‭the‬‭Labor‬‭Code.‬‭Neither‬‭does‬‭Roberto‬‭hold‬‭a‬‭position‬‭of‬‭trust‬‭and‬‭confidence,‬‭which‬‭could‬‭justify‬‭his‬
‭dismissal based on loss of trust. Therefore, Roberto was illegally dismissed.‬
‭An‬ ‭illegally‬ ‭dismissed‬ ‭employee‬ ‭is‬ ‭entitled‬ ‭to‬ ‭reinstatement‬ ‭or‬ ‭separation‬ ‭pay‬ ‭if‬ ‭reinstatement‬ ‭is‬ ‭not‬
‭viable.‬ ‭The‬ ‭award‬ ‭of‬ ‭separation‬ ‭pay‬ ‭is‬ ‭a‬ ‭mere‬ ‭exception.‬‭[50]‬ ‭The‬ ‭Court‬‭allows‬‭separation‬‭pay‬‭in‬‭lieu‬‭of‬
‭reinstatement‬‭when‬‭reinstatement‬‭is‬‭no‬‭longer‬‭feasible,‬‭i.e‬‭.,‬‭when‬‭the‬‭dismissed‬‭employee‬‭opts‬‭not‬‭to‬‭be‬
‭reinstated.‬‭[51]‬ ‭Payment‬ ‭of‬ ‭separation‬ ‭pay‬ ‭is‬ ‭also‬ ‭allowed‬ ‭when‬ ‭there‬ ‭are‬ ‭strained‬ ‭relations‬ ‭between‬ ‭the‬
‭employer‬‭and‬‭employee,‬‭which‬‭must‬‭be‬‭demonstrated‬‭and‬‭adequately‬‭supported‬‭by‬‭substantial‬‭evidence.‬
‭It cannot be based on impression alone.‬‭[52]‬
‭In‬‭this‬‭case,‬‭the‬‭CA‬‭awarded‬‭separation‬‭pay‬‭in‬‭lieu‬‭of‬‭reinstatement,‬‭but‬‭there‬‭is‬‭no‬‭compelling‬‭evidence‬
‭that‬ ‭reinstatement‬ ‭is‬ ‭impracticable.‬ ‭We‬ ‭reiterate‬ ‭that‬ ‭the‬ ‭filing‬ ‭of‬ ‭criminal‬ ‭and‬ ‭illegal‬ ‭dismissal‬ ‭cases‬
‭between‬ ‭the‬ ‭parties‬ ‭does‬ ‭not‬ ‭automatically‬ ‭result‬ ‭in‬ ‭strained‬ ‭relations,‬ ‭rendering‬ ‭the‬ ‭reinstatement‬
‭impossible.‬ ‭At‬ ‭any‬ ‭rate,‬ ‭the‬ ‭Court‬‭sustains‬‭the‬‭award‬‭of‬‭separation‬‭pay‬‭since‬‭reinstatement‬‭is‬‭no‬‭longer‬
‭feasible.‬‭In‬‭his‬‭comment,‬‭Roberto‬‭prayed‬‭that‬‭the‬‭CA's‬‭decision‬‭awarding‬‭separation‬‭pay‬‭in‬‭his‬‭favor‬‭be‬
‭affirmed. He is no longer interested in being reinstated to his former position.‬
‭An‬‭illegally‬‭dismissed‬‭employee‬‭is‬‭also‬‭entitled‬‭to‬‭backwages.‬‭However,‬‭backwages‬‭may‬‭not‬‭be‬‭awarded‬
‭to‬‭an‬‭illegally‬‭dismissed‬‭employee‬‭if‬‭dismissal‬‭is‬‭too‬‭harsh‬‭of‬‭a‬‭penalty‬‭and‬‭the‬‭employer‬‭terminated‬‭the‬
‭employment‬‭in‬‭good‬‭faith.‬‭[53]‬ ‭Such‬‭is‬‭the‬‭case‬‭here.‬‭Certainly,‬‭Roberto‬‭violated‬‭the‬‭company‬‭rules‬‭when‬
‭he‬‭took‬‭a‬‭bottle‬‭of‬‭ethyl‬‭alcohol.‬‭But‬‭then,‬‭the‬‭penalty‬‭of‬‭dismissal‬‭is‬‭not‬‭commensurate‬‭to‬‭his‬‭infraction.‬
‭As‬‭the‬‭Court‬‭held‬‭in‬‭Caltex‬‭,‬‭preventive‬‭suspension,‬‭not‬‭to‬‭mention‬‭Roberto's‬‭imprisonment,‬‭is‬‭a‬‭sufficient‬
‭penalty‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭misdemeanor.‬ ‭Believing‬ ‭that‬ ‭Roberto‬ ‭committed‬ ‭serious‬ ‭misconduct‬ ‭under‬ ‭the‬ ‭Labor‬
‭Code, URC acted in good faith in dismissing him. For these reasons, Roberto is not entitled to backwages.‬
‭Lastly,‬‭Roberto‬‭is‬‭not‬‭entitled‬‭to‬‭attorney's‬‭fees.‬‭Invariably,‬‭the‬‭Court‬‭has‬‭held‬‭that‬‭attorney's‬‭fees‬‭"may‬‭be‬
‭awarded‬ ‭[to]‬‭employees‬‭[who‬‭were]‬‭illegally‬‭dismissed‬‭in‬‭bad‬‭faith‬‭and‬‭is‬‭compelled‬‭to‬‭litigate‬‭or‬‭incur‬
‭expenses‬‭to‬‭protect‬‭[their]‬‭rights[.]"‬‭[54]‬ ‭Considering‬‭that‬‭Roberto‬‭was‬‭not‬‭dismissed‬‭in‬‭bad‬‭faith,‬‭the‬‭Court‬
‭cannot sustain the award of attorney's fees.‬
‭ACCORDINGLY‬‭,‬ ‭the‬ ‭petition‬ ‭is‬ ‭PARTLY‬ ‭GRANTED‬‭.‬ ‭The‬ ‭Court‬ ‭of‬ ‭Appeals'‬ ‭Decision‬ ‭dated‬
‭September‬‭15,‬‭2020‬‭and‬‭Resolution‬‭dated‬‭February‬‭8,‬‭2021‬‭in‬‭CA-G.R.‬‭SP‬‭No.‬‭155421‬‭are‬‭AFFIRMED‬
‭with‬‭MODIFICATION‬‭in‬‭that‬‭the‬‭award‬‭of‬‭backwages‬‭and‬‭attorney's‬‭fees‬‭are‬‭DELETED‬‭.‬‭This‬‭case‬‭is‬
‭REMANDED‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭Labor‬ ‭Arbiter‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭computation‬ ‭of‬ ‭separation‬ ‭pay‬ ‭due‬ ‭to‬‭Roberto‬‭De‬‭Guzman‬
‭Maglalang‬‭from‬‭the‬‭date‬‭of‬‭his‬‭employment‬‭on‬‭November‬‭17,‬‭1997,‬‭up‬‭to‬‭the‬‭date‬‭of‬‭his‬‭illegal‬‭dismissal,‬
‭subject‬ ‭to‬‭legal‬‭interest‬‭at‬‭the‬‭rate‬‭of‬‭six‬‭(6%)‬‭per‬‭annum‬‭from‬‭the‬‭date‬‭of‬‭finality‬‭of‬‭this‬‭Decision‬‭until‬
‭full payment.‬
‭SO ORDERED.‬
‭Leonen, SAJ. (Chairperson), Lazaro-Javier, J. Lopez‬‭,‬‭and‬‭Kho, Jr., JJ‬‭., concur.‬

‭[1]‬
‭Rollo‬‭, pp. 10-46.‬
‭[2]‬
‭Id.‬‭at‬‭52-62.‬‭Penned‬‭by‬‭Associate‬‭Justice‬‭Ronaldo‬‭Roberto‬‭B.‬‭Martin‬‭with‬‭the‬‭concurrence‬‭of‬‭Associate‬
‭Justices Manuel M. Barrios and Tita Marilyn B. Payoyo-Villordon.‬
‭[3]‬
‭Id.‬‭at 63-64.‬
‭[4]‬
‭Id.‬‭at 271-279.‬
‭[5]‬
‭Id.‬‭at 293-295.‬
‭[6]‬
‭Id.‬‭at 53-54.‬
‭[7]‬
‭Theft‬‭under‬‭Section‬‭1.01‬‭of‬‭the‬‭Company's‬‭Offenses‬‭Subject‬‭to‬‭Disciplinary‬‭Action‬‭(OSDA)‬‭or‬‭Code‬‭of‬
‭Discipline,‬‭id.‬‭at 54.‬
‭[8]‬
‭Id.‬‭at 53-54.‬
‭[9]‬
‭Id.‬‭at 54-55.‬
‭[10]‬
‭Id.‬‭at 228.‬
‭[11]‬
‭Id.‬‭at 55.‬
‭[12]‬
‭Id.‬ ‭at‬ ‭226-232.‬‭The‬‭Decision‬‭in‬‭NLRC-NCR-Case‬‭No.‬‭05-07755-17‬‭was‬‭penned‬‭by‬‭Presiding‬‭Labor‬
‭Arbiter Rosalina Maria O. Apita-Battung.‬
‭[13]‬
‭Id.‬‭at 232.‬
‭[14]‬
‭Id.‬‭at 271-279. Docketed as NLRC LAC No. 12-003716-17/NLRC‬‭NCR Case No. 05-07755-17.‬
‭[15]‬
‭NLRC Resolution dated January 31, 2018,‬‭id.‬‭at‬‭293-295.‬
‭[16]‬
‭Id.‬‭at 52.‬
‭[17]‬
‭Id.‬‭at 52-62.‬
‭[18]‬
‭Id.‬‭at 60.‬
‭[19]‬
‭Id.‬‭at 61-62.‬
‭[20]‬
‭Id.‬‭at 63-64.‬
‭[21]‬
‭Id.‬‭at 22-44.‬
‭[22]‬
‭Id.‬‭at 947-950; and 954-956.‬
‭[23]‬
‭721 Phil. 772 (2013).‬
‭[24]‬
‭Id.‬‭at 785-788.‬
‭[25]‬
‭Century Iron Works, Inc. et al. v. Bañas,‬‭711‬‭Phil. 576, 585-586 (2013).‬
‭[26]‬
‭See‬‭St. Luke's Medical Center, Inc. v. Sanchez‬‭,‬‭755 Phil. 910, 922-923 (2015).‬
‭[27]‬
‭Adamson‬ ‭University‬ ‭Faculty‬ ‭and‬ ‭Employee‬ ‭Union‬ ‭v.‬ ‭Adamson‬ ‭University,‬ ‭G.R.‬ ‭No.‬ ‭227070‬‭,‬
‭March 9, 2020, <‬‭https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/docmonth/Mar/2020/1‬‭>.‬
‭[28]‬
‭Sterling Paper Products Enterprises, Inc. v.‬‭KMM-Katipunan‬‭, 815 Phil. 425, 436 (2017).‬
‭[29]‬
‭Cadavas v. CA, et al.‬‭G.R. No. 228765,‬‭March‬‭20, 2019, <‬‭https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/2902/‬‭>.‬
‭[30]‬
‭Holcim Phils., Inc. v. Obra‬‭, 792 Phil. 594, 604‬‭(2016).‬
‭[31]‬
‭156 Phil. 489 (1974).‬
‭[32]‬
‭Id.‬‭at 493-494.‬
‭[33]‬
‭232 Phil. 201 (1987).‬
‭[34]‬
‭Id.‬‭at 206-207.‬
‭[35]‬
‭257 Phil. 301 (1989).‬
‭[36]‬
‭Id.‬‭at 310.‬
‭[37]‬
‭Cited in‬‭Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Air Lines‬‭Employees Association‬‭, 57 SCRA 489 (1974).‬
‭[38]‬
‭316 Phil. 335 (1995).‬
‭[39]‬
‭Id.‬‭at 344.‬
‭[40]‬
‭641 Phil. 300 (2010).‬
‭[41]‬
‭Id.‬‭at 310.‬
‭[42]‬
‭Id.‬‭at 311-313.‬
‭[43]‬
‭Supra‬‭note 30.‬
‭[44]‬
‭See‬‭supra‬‭at 604.‬
‭[45]‬
‭Supra‬‭note 35 at 307-308; and‬‭supra‬‭note 38 at‬‭340.‬
‭[46]‬
‭629 Phil. 247 (2010).‬
‭[47]‬
‭Supra‬‭note 30 at 607.‬
‭[48]‬
‭Supra‬‭note 40 at 311-312.‬
‭[49]‬
‭Rollo‬‭, p. 955.‬
‭[50]‬
‭Fernandez v. Manila Electric Company (Meralco)‬‭,‬‭834 Phil. 137, 147 (2018).‬
‭[51]‬
‭Verizon‬ ‭Communications‬ ‭Philippines,‬ ‭Inc.‬ ‭v.‬ ‭Margin,‬ ‭G.R.‬ ‭No.‬ ‭216599‬‭,‬ ‭September‬ ‭16,‬ ‭2020.‬
‭<‭h‬ ttps://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/docmonth/Sep/2020/1‬‭>.‬
‭[52]‬
‭Supra‬‭note 50 at 148.‬
‭[53]‬
‭Supra‬‭note 51.‬
‭[54]‬
‭Philippine‬‭Airlines,‬‭Inc.‬‭v.‬‭NLRC‬‭,‬‭648‬‭Phil.‬‭238,‬‭366‬‭(2010);‬‭Pepsi‬‭Cola‬‭Products‬‭Philippines,‬‭Inc.‬
‭v. Santos‬‭, 574 Phil. 400, 408 (2008); and‬‭Pascua v.‬‭NLRC (Third Div.)‬‭, 351 Phil. 48, 74-75 (1998).‬
 ‭Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date created: August 17, 2023‬

‭This page was dynamically generated by the E-Library Content Management System‬